I like them both. Dario made Susperia, which I truly like. But he also did an international cut to Dawn of the Dead, and also Demons 1 and 2. But Fulci, made Zombie 2, aka Zombie Flesh Eaters, The Beyond, Gates of Hell, House by The Cemetary, to name a few. A lean more towards Fulci, because of his Zombie movies.
I voted Argento.There's a few of his movies that are weak. Fulci has a few that are good. Still I enjoy both.
both are brilliant, but I had to go with Argento. His films are far more rewatchable. Both this guys really get under the skin. Favorite Argento's: Opera Suspiria Tenebrae Favorite Fulci's The New York Ripper The Beyond Contraband :evil:
Wow I voted for Fulci a long time ago and just realized I hadn't actually posted in the thread. Since then my opinions have changed, because I've seen more of Argento's movies - I love both filmmakers very much, but Argento has more films in his filmography that I enjoy than Fulci.
Dario Argento cause he has style and a plot , giallo has always been my favorite theme . There is only a few films by Lucio Fulci i do like but Dario Argento is a more in the master of the arts and Fulci is a more of a master in gore . R.I.P Fulci at least you have made some classic films " The Beyond , House By The Cemetery , City Of The Living Dead , Zombie "
Most everything Fulci did, Argento did and did it better. I know there are alot of diehard Fulci fans, but I don't really see what the big deal is. I thought The Beyond was complete crap. New York Ripper and Zombie were pretty good, I'll give him that. House by the Cemetary, Don't Torture a Duckling were very average.
If you ask me some of you people have it backwards Argento's films have no depth as far as meaning/subtext goes (and i mean they are not intentional, as in they don't refer outside of themselves), they are merely subconscious nightmarish visions, very beautiful and haunting at that at their best, but often for me his style is hit and miss. Fulci has everything thought out, and it shows, even if i don't always know what he's trying to say, it's clear to me that there is more to the movie than meets the eye. As for technique and pure style, i'd say they are equal. Sometimes Fulci does very badly in these regards, but so does Argento (i cringe when i see some scenes of Tenebrae, for example), Fulci's worst moment being House by the Cemetery. So my vote goes for Fulci. Both are visionaries, however, but to my mind Fulci offers much more. SACATECA
Two very different filmmakers. I had to think about this for minute before I came to my realization, simply because I'm a huge fan of both directors, and own many of their movies. My favor kept on leaning towards Argento as I weighed their movies in comparison. I'm not one to usually hold people in a certain light of, "he's my favorite director, he's my second favorite director", ECT. Either I hold them in high esteem or I don't. Well, these two I hold in very high esteem for many reasons, and I had to ask myself, If I was stuck on a desert island...you know the rest, and Argento prevailed as the one who's movies I'd have to choose in this cliche ridden scenario. Tenebrae Deep Red Suspiria Opera Can O' Nine Tails The Bird With The Crystal Plumage Sleepless Trauma Phenomena To me all solid movies that I never tire of. Fulci on the other hand, a career with more hits and misses than Argento, IMO. For every "The Beyond", there's a "Sweet house of Horrors", for every "Zombie", there's a "Demonia". I simply cannot weigh Argento's movies the same way. Certainly, Phantom of the Opera comes to mind, but Argento does not have enough "misses" to counter his "hits" as Fulci does. And I also got to thinking, where would directors like Michele Soavi and Lamberto Bava be without their occasional mentor in Dario Argento? The more I thought about it, the more it became clear to me that - if I had to choose - the superior filmmaker would have to be Dario Argento.
Morg is right on the money. While Aregento has some weak films, he has shown brilliance in most of his work. All films by both directors are flawed to a certain point, but Argento clearly has a technical edge. IMO, the Card Player is a very entertaining piece of work even though it is not Argento's best. But some bad Fulci films are just plain terrible with nothing to save them. For example, in the AB Once Upon A Time in Italy boxset, there is Fulci's western, Four Men of the Apocalypse. It starts out a truly more violent than most westerns as per Fulci's trademark, but man, it gets so slow and boring so fast that it sunk itself to the bottom in comparison to the rest in the set. Argento does have a tendancy to spread out some nice scenes even throughout his most boring of films still leaving the viewer with, at least, the eye candy of architecture, lighting, etc. With Fulci, his only edge is gore, and without it, he would not have a career.
That couldn't be further from the truth. LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN and MURDER TO THE TUNE OF THE SEVEN BLACK NOTES are both superb gialli with very little gore or bloodshed at all. Fulci was a true craftsman, and while my personal preference is Argento, it's impossible to look past the talents of the man whose career covered so many genres.
Lucio Fulci. There are just too many of Argentos movies that have failed to grow on me after repeated viewings.
Well, as far as i'm concerned i don't care about technical edge, but am much more interested in what the film is trying to say, or what the film says to me. Argento's films, most of them anyway, are very little else but eye-candy (this is not completely true, but in this case it's close enough to get my point across). i don't like Fulci because of gore, and i think contrary to popular opinion, he used gore to make a point, and it's not in his movies for self-serving purposes. His films are not accessible, however, to people who are not willing to commit themselves and look past the surface. From what i've read in this forum, it seems to me that people who dislike Fulci, and Euro-horror in general, care more about technical prowess, and eye-candy, than what the movie possibly could say (and since Argento makes his movies first and foremost aesthetics in mind, it's understandable he proves to be more popular). But Europe, Italy especially, has a very different kind of tradition of movies than the US. Their whole approach is different, and this must be understood. But true is also, that i like them both, and get much out of watching Argento's movies, too. SACATECA
Well, at least in Lamberto Bava's case, I would gather that his father Mario Bava was MUCH more influential then Dario Argento. Where would Argento and Fulci be without Mario Bava?
I almost mentioned that too, but felt like I was too long winded as it was, but I totally agree with you. Bava is an extraordinary filmmaker, and I'm sure was much more of an influence and inspiration on Lamberto than Argento could ever be. This guy's been surrounded by phenomenal filmmakers. And to this day we see the influence of Mario Bava in many films.
I really don't care for Argento's hollow, stylish brand of "horror." I have tried many, many times and cannot stand it; I much prefer Fulci. I realize, after a few years on this site, that this opinion is not shared by most. Oh well.
Both are worthy.Argento perhaps fares better because he has had more control over his own projects than Fulci did.Keep in mind that the two were of different generations.Fulci was a contemporary of Mario Bava(who was a mentor to Argento).Bava was a brilliant,tremendously talented director who was often working as a hired gun.He improved every project he was involved in but he was often starting out with somebody elses subpar material and VERY tight budgets.That he was able to do what he did with what he had to work with was amazing.Every horror fan should light a candle to him. Fulci was from the same school,he was often a hired hand,brought in on some producers half baked,poorly financed projects.That he managed to turn out some exceptional work despite those circumstances is impressive.The budget of ZOMBIE wouldn't have payed for the catering on THE DARK KNIGHT.Unlike Argento (who has stuck to horror except his obscure black comedy THE FIVE DAYS) he was also a Jack of All trades,he worked in numerous genres(comedies,crime ,fantasy,Euro westerns etc.),showing flair in many of them.He was in effect a company man,even though he was a rebellious one. Argento started out with more control than Fulci did and he largely generated his own projects,he worked on what he wanted to,not on things he was assigned to.Also he often had somewhat larger budgets than Fulci (who was especially cash strapped in his later years).With more personal control,more money and more time Argento was often able to make more polished films.His personal vision was less apt to be thwarted by a tight fisted producer. All told I will give this to Argento.His projects were less compromised overall.Fulci made a lot more films,though,and had he had more money and say in his career this might well be a much harder decission.
Argento. Greatest horror director in the entire genre. Fulci did some good stuff, but never truly mastered filmmaking, let alone the horror genre. He did however kind of invent his own type of horror. And that's pretty remarkable. However, Argento wins this one for me. No contest.
